|
|
|
|
|
This image has expired.
Final Stats:
| Total Votes |
206 |
| Average Score |
4.66 |
| Verdict |
Not Rice
|
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=27055 |
|
| Comments: 213 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 09-10-2003
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
Honda Jazz...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
Showing page: 6 of 11
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]
 |
| #102 |
2-11-2004 @ 02:58:47 PM |
| Posted By : Silverbaby |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#99, When you say it like that is sounds really gross, and that's not really what turns me on anyway, I don't care for that part of it, it's mainly just the kissing...
|
|
| #103 |
2-11-2004 @ 02:59:21 PM |
| Posted By : SuperDave479 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#99, Haha, I don't think there's much to "learn". Her liking two guys together though is a little weird to me but it doesn't affect me anyway since I don't like guys myself.
|
|
| #104 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:00:02 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#95, Naive? Do you honestly think that everyone else can have equal rights when Jews and Christians get special priviledges? Your religion practically runs the state government here, and it's not exactly a pleasant thing, unless you're in the majority.
I'm not getting into it again though.
You never get into it. Every time this topic comes up you just gloss over my arguments and go on saying the same thing you've always said, rather than answer my arguments as I do with yours.
|
|
| #107 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:07:31 PM |
| Posted By : SuperDave479 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#106, Oh, but if I ever accidentally open some gay porn because of a link you went to or something I'm going to have to kick your butt. ;)
|
|
| #108 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:07:59 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.
|
|
| #110 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:08:12 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
(con'd from 108) The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
***It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
[Edited by mr_mcmunkee on 2-11-2004 @ 03:09:47 PM]
|
|
| #111 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:08:36 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church.
***Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.
|
|
| #113 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:10:30 PM |
| Posted By : Silverbaby |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#86, It's nice that at least we can have a discussion and not become enemies with just cause we feel differently about something.
|
|
| #118 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:14:48 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Nice to see you've mastered the art of "cut and paste".
It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.
Once again, apart from our "recovering from the McCarthy era" school system, where do you get that this government was founded on Chrisitianity? And the "wall" protects both the state and the church: It prevents government-endorsed proseletyzation and keeps churches and similar places of worship tax-free.
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion.
It DOESN'T interfere with the free practice of religion.
|
|
| #119 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:17:18 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
And sorry I don't debate like you...I'm not into using so many colors.
That's not what I mean. I'm referring to the fact that you can never refute my refutations, so just ignore them instead. How exactly could you refute the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli?
|
|
| #120 |
2-11-2004 @ 03:19:56 PM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
How exactly can you refute the 1st Amendment?
Sure, you NEVER cut and paste.
|
Showing page: 6 of 11
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
